P&P: RE: SUO: Both Motions Pass

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Title:

Dear Bob and Jim,

 

OK. Then I think that the motion still stands (at present) but we should note that there is an appeal outstanding both against the SUMO resolution and the voting method.

 

I agree the issue is about how votes are counted, or more particularly achieving clarity and certainty about how votes are counted.

 

Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Spillers [mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
Sent: 01 January 2004 23:14
To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; jim.s3@juno.com; suo-policies@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: Both Motions Pass

Matthew,
I did advise the WG that the motion failed. I also asked the IEEE-SA  to enforce the previous motion of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors.  I was informed that the matter of enforcement had been delegated to a committee that was charged with a broader mission and that it would that some months to reply.  I haven't been as aggressive as I should have been in following up since the SUMO was also part of John Sowa's motion.  The issue is how votes are counted not the SUMO.    

I will follow up on this matter.

Bob

West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:

Dear Jim,

 

You are correct, whilst people acted as if the SUMO motion had failed, it hadn't, since

you ruled that it passed and there is no evidence of a successful appeal.

 

I have added the motion and ballot results to the draft resolutions page.

 

Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
Sent: 31 December 2003 14:34
To: suo-policies@ieee.org
Cc: adampease@earthlink.net
Subject: P&P: Re: SUO: Both Motions Pass

Matthew,

 

        Thank you for sending this informal objection, because it helps me remember how it played out.

 

        What you cite was not a formal appeal, so it stood that the motion passed. 

 

        Here's some background.

 

        RRO, which all IEEE working groups except us follow, count only YES and NO votes when determining majority.  Bob Spillers submitted an informal appeal in 2002 and the IEEE Standards Association overturned the original SUMO vote, directing us to include ABSTAINS.  

 

Mixed in to this direction were emails quoting laws and policies that could be interpreted to require we include ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and perhaps even ALL VOTING MEMBERS.

 

But the specific direction was to include ABSTIANS, which is what we are following, even though no other IEEE organizations were so directed.  The CS SAB Chair, our sponsor, advised me to follow this direction.

 

Yes, there is confusion, but I strongly suggest we leave things as they currently are.

 

Jim